SI.com: College Football TV Roundtable

[jlb1705]

This discussion is pertinent to about 20 different threads here. Rather than breaking it down in each of them, I thought it best just to give a thread of its own.

Richard Deitsch, whose Media Circus column for SI.com covers examines sports journalism & programming, brought together Stewart Mandel, Andy Staples, George Schroeder & himself to discuss TV coverage for the upcoming college football season.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...television/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a1

They discussed a variety of topics, which included commentators, agendas, credibility, regional networks and sideline reporters. Here are some of the passages I found most interesting:

On Craig James:

2. Which college football announcer/s are the least appealing for you and why?

Mandel: Craig James and Jesse Palmer. James' glaring conflict of interest (more on that later) aside, it's still two ex-jocks glad-handing each other and spewing clich?s for three-and-a-half hours. I feel bad for Rece Davis, a true pro, who spends Thursday nights wedged between those two and Saturdays moderating the Mark May-Lou Holtz circus act.

Staples: Craig James, because he adds very little to the broadcast, and ESPN has sacrificed much of its journalistic integrity to protect him in the wake of his campaign to get Mike Leach fired at Texas Tech. If ESPN replaced James with any random ex-jock, viewers wouldn't complain a bit. Yet for some reason the network has bent over backward to protect James. It makes no sense.

Schroeder: Other than Craig James? Even aside from the helicopter-dad/Mike Leach/Texas Tech stuff, I'm not a big fan. And how can we leave aside that stuff? Since he is still employed, can we at least eliminate the weekly weird-workout feature with James (and Jesse Palmer) and the home team's strength coach on those Thursday night games? We get it, James was a big-time athlete and he's still able to toss around big tires.There are a lot of forgettable announcers out there. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though. As much as I enjoy listening to him, Musburger walks a fine line. When he crosses it, he can override the game. I'll take a dialed-back, who-was-that-announcer broadcast and be more than satisfied.

Deitsch: That Craig James gets such prominent assignments remains a mystery on the D.B. Cooper scale. He is unpopular by any fan metric you choose, including performance and likeability. The fact that former Texas Tech coach Mike Leach is suing James merely adds noise here. ESPN management says it values James for his relationships with coaches but what that ultimately leads to for viewers is little more than backslapping commentary. The network deserves to get crushed for keeping him on the air. I'm not as bothered by Palmer as some of the other guys but I agree with everyone on Holtz, whose act wore thin around the time Ron Powlus graduated from Notre Dame. Again, Holtz is an example of Bristol management having a tin ear with a broadcaster whose name far exceeds his value. Same with James.

8. Do you trust Craig James when it comes to reporting on the Big 12?

Mandel: I wouldn't trust Craig James to report on sixth-grade volleyball. It's been established, via documented emails, that he not only encouraged a sitting Big 12 football coach's dismissal but hired a PR firm to intentionally manipulate coverage. And yet he's still walking into Big 12 coaches' offices every week to break down tape. Now he's running partisan political advocacy ads, which you would think would be a no-no for a television analyst (I seem to recall Lou Holtz getting in trouble simply for endorsing a candidate). How he's still on television (and in prominent time slots at that) is one of the great mysteries of modern civilization.

Staples: No. But I don't trust him when it comes to reporting on anything.

Schroeder: Does he report? I'm not sure how ESPN justified keeping him around. But he's still around. And now that Leach is no longer at Texas Tech, the immediate storm has passed. It would be unthinkable to have James in the booth for one of Leach's games (when Leach inevitably returns to coaching). Which is why it will probably happen. Until then, did you know James was a big-time athlete and he can still toss around big tires?

Deitsch: (Laughs).

On ESPN:

3. If you could change anything about ESPN's college football coverage, what would you change and why?

Mandel: It's far too late to stop, but ideally there'd be more separation of church and state between the programming and journalism sides. The Bruce Feldman incident and the Longhorn Network have shown that horse has left the stable for good.

Staples: Lately, it seems as if ESPN has tried to set the agenda for college coverage. This is a bad idea. The big story is what it is, and people will seek coverage of it even if it happens to be SEC coaches "Car Wash" day. There will be days when I turn on College Football Live and I wonder if I even cover the same sport. The fact that ESPN is in bed financially with all the conferences shouldn't affect its journalism choices. Really, ESPN is so massive that the business relationships don't have to affect journalism choices. At this point, the conferences need ESPN more than it needs the conferences. So it shouldn't kowtow.

On the Longhorn Network:

4. Are regional networks (Big Ten Network, Pac-12 Network) good for the sport?

Deitsch: It's fantastic programming for the diehard conference fan, and I love the auxiliary benefit of non-revenue sports such as women's basketball and track and field getting added exposure on football's back. Here's the big downside: Regional networks, in general, are not a great place to find journalism. No matter how ESPN spins it, The Longhorn Network is a PR arm of Texas. The network's existence also creates an impossible situation for ESPN's college football producers and reporters (plenty of whom care about reporting). For every story ESPN does on Texas and its opponents, they'll be skeptics wondering what the motivation was for the story. As one longtime ESPNer told me, the LHN will be the worst decision in the company's history regarding its newsgathering arm.

6. How big of an advantage is the Longhorn Network for Texas?

Mandel: It depends on what's ultimately allowed. Showing high-school games would be a game-changer, but I think there's so much pressure on Texas and the NCAA right now to block it. Otherwise, it's a slight advantage financially but not that much exposure-wise, because no one that's not a Texas fan is going to watch it.

Staples: It's huge. Besides Notre Dame, no other school has the combination of marketing muscle and huge fan base to make this work. Texas is the dominant school in a state of 25 million people. That fact alone guarantees wide distribution. If they ever are allowed to broadcast high school games on The Longhorn Network, it will give Texas an almost prohibitive recruiting advantage.

Schroeder: Will they be showing Dillon High's games? Even without high school games, it's a giant advantage in a lot of ways. Think of the potential just considering the 'Inside Texas football' type of programming -- carefully sanitized Hard Knocks meant to present the football program, in this case, in nothing but the most positive light. Never mind the high school games, recruits will be promised serious exposure -- and then they'll get it. Fans will lap it up. The kids will love it. How could it not help? That said, Texas already gets almost every player it wants from in-state, and rarely even ventures beyond the borders (you might have heard, but it's a whole other country). It's not like there are a bunch of kids who've been getting away from the 'Horns -- but figure fewer get away now.

Deitsch: Huge advantage. For starters, it's a direct message that Texas is linked to the biggest television brand in sports. Obviously, as the guys mentioned above, showing high school games in the future would be a killer ap for recruiting.

 

[BayBuck]

SI has really been ramping up their criticism of the ESPN media conglomerate lately, and that's a good thing. These guys make the good point that ESPN is so big they don't need to be playing favorites with CFB conferences, and that they need for everyone's sake to get back to actual sports reporting.

 

[jlb1705]

SI has really been ramping up their criticism of the ESPN media conglomerate lately, and that's a good thing. These guys make the good point that ESPN is so big they don't need to be playing favorites with CFB conferences, and that they need for everyone's sake to get back to actual sports reporting.

To that point, this bit from Staples seems especially damning:

There will be days when I turn on College Football Live and I wonder if I even cover the same sport.

 

[Muck]

Good call JLB I was planning on posting the Craig James quotes in the Mike Leach thread.

 

[OH10]

Craig James is a human pinata. He's earned it.

 

[jlb1705]

Good call JLB I was planning on posting the Craig James quotes in the Mike Leach thread.

Yeah, they tore him a new one. I didn't agree with their take on Herbstreit and Fowler - they were either unaware of, or glossing over their treatment of last season's final AP Poll ballot. Then again, these guys are probably voters as well and perhaps don't want their ballots so closely scrutinized either.

 

[Muck]

Yeah, they tore him a new one. I didn't agree with their take on Herbstreit and Fowler - they were either unaware of, or glossing over their treatment of last season's final AP Poll ballot. Then again, these guys are probably voters as well and perhaps don't want their ballots so closely scrutinized either.

I doubt they care how Kirk votes in the AP. He really has been a good commentator over most of his career. Yes it looks as if he's stuck in a continuous loop the last couple of years in a lot of his comments...but at least he still gives the appearance of knowing what he's talking about which is miles & miels ahead of the usual ESPN scripted contentless garbage.

 

[jwinslow]

He really has been a good commentator over most of his career.

His commentary boils down to 'speed', 'in space', 'face guarding' & other cliches repeated ad nauseum in lieu of actual analysis.

His excellent delivery masks very empty analysis.

but at least he still gives the appearance of knowing what he's talking about which is miles & miels ahead of the usual ESPN scripted contentless garbage.

Danielson knew what he was talking about. Jaws knows what he's talking about. Gruden too. Those are good anouncers.

Tirico gives the appearance of knowing what he's talking about. So does Spiels.

Herbie gives the appearance of knowing how to talk to uneducated football audience, and he's great at it.

 

[buckeyesin07]

His commentary boils down to 'speed', 'in space', 'face guarding' & other cliches repeated ad nauseum in lieu of actual analysis.

Bingo. Watch the short clips during Sportscenter, and the only thing that changes are the names of the teams playing in the game that he's currently "analyzing." The cliches and lack of substance are the same every time.

 

[billmac91]

I think I only saw one mention of Todd Blackledge as one of the best, which makes this article pretty weak, IMO.

The guy far and away provides the best analysis. He shouldn't be punished b/c he was paired with Mike Patrick for years....

 

[jlb1705]

I doubt they care how Kirk votes in the AP. He really has been a good commentator over most of his career. Yes it looks as if he's stuck in a continuous loop the last couple of years in a lot of his comments...but at least he still gives the appearance of knowing what he's talking about which is miles & miels ahead of the usual ESPN scripted contentless garbage.

I agree that it's not pertinent to his role in the booth and that relatively speaking, he is a good live game commentator.

I do think it's pertinent to his role on GameDay though, and should be considered as part of his overall body of work.

 

[jlb1705]

I think I only saw one mention of Todd Blackledge as one of the best, which makes this article pretty weak, IMO.

The guy far and away provides the best analysis. He shouldn't be punished b/c he was paired with Mike Patrick for years....

Agreed on Blackledge.

I don't necessarily see the omission as a bad thing. Honestly, I didn't recall him until your post. In a way, that can be the mark of a good commentator. They can be a bit like umpires or offensive linemen - if you know who they are, it probably means they are doing something wrong.

 

[ochre]

Photographic evidence of ESPN's newsgathering arm(s):

 

[Ryan36_1]

I was disappointed at the lack of mention about Jesse Palmer not understanding how to properly wear a necktie for two years straight.

 

[Muck]

What happened there, did he borrow a clip on from Chris Fowler's son?